memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:Capt Christopher Donovan
--Alan del Beccio 08:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Sovereign class You've made a lot of really good edits lately to the Sovereign class article. There is a little bit of stuff you have removed that needs to go back. The information on the Quantum torpedo launcher located near the captain's yacht (the "fore" turret). You removed it because you believed it to be non-canon. Problem is, it is seen on-screen in Star Trek: First Contact. The rate of fire (or at least minimum rate) is also seen in that movie. Actually, that information was already discussed in the talk page for that article, specifically at Talk:Sovereign_class#Designation_and_other_Canon-issues. Any chance you could put the info back (I would, but I have had a lot of work this weekend, and I am really tired)? --OuroborosCobra talk 18:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC) :You don't have to put them back anymore. I woke up more, and just did it. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) ::Ah, the debate over whether tubes can only fire either photons or quantum, or both. I actually happen to agree with you, there is no evidence that I know of that they ONLY fire one or the other. The article still needs to talk bout that nifty launcher forward of the captain's yacht (the so called "turret"), but we can just call it a torpedo launcher, rather than a photon or quantum. ::Honestly, I don' know where people got the idea that they can only do one or the other. --OuroborosCobra talk 08:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC) User Page No, didn't want to talk. Just noticed your user page came up in the most wanted page listing (from signing your name to various talk pages I'm presuming), so created a basic page pointing at your talk page so that it wouldn't show up as a "most wanted page" anymore. :) -- Sulfur 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC) "Warsies" I saw your comment on us "warsies" at the votes for deletion page. I take that as an insult. Please tell me what you find to be so horrible about Star Wars fans like myself. Adamwankenobi 18:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC) :He wasn't talking about you or any other normal Star Wars fans. He was talking about a certain small sub-group of Star Wars fans (and their hangers-on) from a certain website's forum. This type of Star War fan insults and berates others (now including Star Wars authors and VIPs like Karen Traviss and many others) for failing to make the SW-verse as big and bad as possible to make it a better comparison against Trek, among other reasons. Board invasions, wiki-wars, and other such nonsense are commonplace, and the smallest example of the lengths they'll go to. They have also shut down or attempted to shut down opposing views via personal harassment, death threats, and so on. Nowadays, such parties are also known as "Talifan", a play on "Taliban". - DSG2k 23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC) ::Ah, I see. I know the type. We don't want them at Wookieepedia either. Adamwankenobi 02:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC) Galaxy class torpedo thing OK, thanks for saying where the info was from. I had reverted it after talking with other people on the MA IRC channel (so it was not my decision alone), and none of us could think of a canon reference that specified 10, and while "Arsenal" FX showed that,it could only be taken as an "at least that many", not a specific number. I honestly have not read the TNG TM in about ten years, and the other people I was talking to may not have either. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC) :I wonder if people confuse the aft launcher from the stardrive (in the neck I think) with that of the aft saucer. I certainly don't remember seeing the saucer fire aft torpedoes. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC) Cetacian ops? Just curious, where in "Yesterdays Enterprise" do they call it that? It is not in the script... --OuroborosCobra talk 22:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC) :In the Ten Forward scene onboard the "battleship" Enterprise-D, as part of the background "paging" chatter is the following "Dr Joshua Cambell, please report to Cetacean Ops..."Capt Christopher Donovan 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC) ::OK, thanks again. I don't have any of the episodes on DVD or anything, unfortunetly, so I'll take your word for it. --OuroborosCobra talk 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC) :Um, I think we need to discuss this again. Stating that it is an alternate reality is NOT hairsplitting. THere is a lot about that ship, especially terminology, that was DIFFERENT in that timeline than from the main one. For example, rather than stardate, they used combat date. I think that it needs to be stated as an alternate timeline reference unless you can come up with one from the main timeline. Or are we also going to start saying that the Enterprise-D was rebuilt after it was destroyed and had a third engine mounted on it? --OuroborosCobra talk 07:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Honestly, yes I DO feel you're "hair-splitting", and it's not the first time you've engaged in it Don't take this as an insult, it's just an observation. You WERE the one who gave as an example that you would insist on a canon quote to define something as uncontroversial as a "Bajoran chair". It's being overly picky to insist on making that note "other universe speculation." The Bridge was still the Bridge, same with the Transporter Room and Engineering.Capt Christopher Donovan 07:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)